For instance, {lo snomabru ku ce lo cakmabru ku ce lo mantyctimabru} denotes
the set {sloth, armadillo, anteater}, not the set {{sloth, armadillo},
anteater}, which is what the parse tree implies.
Hmm; leads me to wonder if "ce" does that with other sets, or just sets defined using "ce". It's still amenable to recursive definition, it's just a slightly more complex one; "ce" would then be either "the set consisting of the left element and the right element" or "the union of the set defined with ce on the left and the set containing the element on the right." Might try coming up with a graphical representation appealing to myself. It seems to me that it might also be worthwhile to have a similar map of the lojban grammar, as well. Would certainly solidify my knowledge of the nitty-gritty of the language. Does anyone happen to know if the EBNF grammar at http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/bnf.300 is complete in the sense that if you replaced all the words in a text with their terminal symbols and used the information in the EBNF grammar, you wouldn't fail on any important structures? (both because I want to know if that'd be an appropriate source to work from in doing such a graphical representation of the grammar, and beause I'd kinda like to see a computer version using Bison's GLR feature, if that's possible, to make a more readable computer form.) -Jonathan